Short Reads

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restricti

Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

01.08.2019 NL law

The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

This should represent a clear call for companies to double-check their distribution and licensing agreements for cross-border sales restrictions, and take any necessary action.

According to the Commission's press release, Sanrio's non-exclusive licensing agreements infringed EU competition rules by containing clauses i) explicitly prohibiting out-of-territory sales by licensees, ii) committing licensees to refer orders for out-of-territory sales to Sanrio, and iii) limiting the languages used on the merchandising products. Sanrio kept tabs on the licensees' compliance with these territorial restrictions, and made clear the consequences of non-compliance, by conducting audits and refusing to renew contracts with non-abiding licensees. In line with the Commission's practice rewarding cooperation outside cartel cases [see our January 2018 Newsletter], Sanrio obtained a 40% fine reduction for having cooperated beyond its legal obligation to do so.

The fine on Sanrio fits into the Commission's increased focus on vertical restraints, initiated by its 2017 e-commerce sector report [see our June 2017 Newsletter]. Fines have already been imposed for (online and offline) resale price maintenance and territorial restrictions. National competition authorities, such as the Dutch ACM, the French Autorité de la Concurrence and the German Bundeskartellamt, are also stepping up the pace in the quest against vertical restrictions.

The review of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER), due to expire in 2022, could therefore not have come at a better time. Not only is a uniform approach on how to enforce vertical restrictions among EU competition authorities long overdue, more guidance and clarity would also benefit companies when concluding vertical agreements. According to the evaluation roadmap, the VBER's review should be ready by the second quarter of next year. It will therefore soon be clearer whether good things indeed come to those who wait.

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of August 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

05.12.2019 NL law
Big tech firms entering banking: be careful what you wish for

Short Reads - Big tech firms, whether entering or already active on payments markets, are under scrutiny. PSD2 has opened up the payments markets to non-bank companies, but this comes with both risks and opportunities. EU regulators are examining anticompetitive risks, for example the possibility of leveraging a strong position in one market into another market. Competition, innovation, privacy and security for financial transactions will all be hot topics as scrutiny increases on providers of payment services.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Court of Appeal applies competition notion of undertaking in civil damages claim

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem – Leeuwarden recently applied the competition law notion of an 'undertaking' in a civil damages suit between TenneT and an entity belonging to the Alstom group of companies. The Court of Appeal ruled that Cogelex formed a single undertaking with its 48% shareholder Alstom. Cogelex could therefore be held liable under civil law for the competition law infringement of its 48% parent company. The Court of Appeal based its decision on a broad application of the ECJ’s reasoning in its Skanska judgment of 14 March 2019.

Read more

05.12.2019 NL law
Walking a thin line: cooperation and collusion

Short Reads - Buying groups are under attack from competition authorities across Europe. Joint buying arrangements are aimed at strengthening participating companies' bargaining power towards their trading partners, usually resulting in lower prices or better quality for consumers. However, these buying arrangements must stay on the right side of the line between legitimate cooperation and anticompetitive collusion. Competition concerns may arise if the participating companies have a significant degree of market power or coordinate their conduct.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring